Balancing risk communication and accountability concerns in risk management: A study of major public project investments

Abstract Effective administration of public organizations requires timely responses to emerging risks, yet communicating those risks up the hierarchy can expose operational managers to blame in politicized accountability environments. This study examines how public managers navigated that tension in an analysis of 130 risk reports filed over a seven-year period associated with two major procurement and maintenance projects in the Danish Defence. Using an abductive qualitative approach, we develop a dynamic model of risk management with four phases: (1) risk as an operational concern, (2) turning risk into an organizational problem, (3) assigning blame and accountability, and (4) initiating mitigation and response. We find that risk and accountability communication are interdependent processes rather than independent sequential processes. Operational managers attempt to raise awareness of emerging risks while simultaneously deflecting potential blame and catering to higher-level concerns about public scrutiny. This tension generates pressure to only report when it is absolutely necessary, while higher-level managers often postpone action to avoid political exposure. These practices contribute to delays, projects not meeting specifications, and significant budget overruns. The study advances a dynamic theory of public sector risk management and explains how hierarchical communication practices influence whether, when, and how emerging risks are addressed.